Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

An agent-based model of the formation and evolution of common ground

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Treating a missing reply as rejection builds a group-wide common ground; treating it as acceptance can dissolve it—even into anomie.

desk verdict A clean, well-specified sender-receiver grounding model with a plausible phase diagram, but the DBSCAN-based cluster measurement needs sensitivity analysis before the anomie/fragmentation claims are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28915 v1 pith:EK3MNATS submitted 2026-07-31 physics.soc-ph cs.SImath-phmath.MP

Mengbin Ye , Wooseok Jung , Tony J. Mathew , Lorenzo Zino , Yoshihisa Kashima This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phcs.SImath-phmath.MP
keywords commongroundgroundingagent-basedmodelculturaldynamicssocialinfluenceanomiesignallossinterpretationbias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the micro-level mechanics of how people ground shared information—whether a sender sees a receiver's response, and how the sender interprets silence—determine whether a whole population ends up with one shared common ground, several fragmented ones, or none at all. It builds an agent-based model where each agent holds a certainty vector over possible pieces of information, and pairs repeatedly exchange information in sender–receiver interactions. Monte Carlo simulations show that when a sender is very likely to miss the receiver's response and interprets that silence as rejection, a single global common ground reliably forms, regardless of how many information items are available. In contrast, when silence is interpreted as acceptance and many information items compete, the common ground collapses into anomie, with agents living in isolated information bubbles. The result matters because it suggests concrete, designable features of communication environments—like whether non-replies are seen as disagreement—that can either unite or fragment a collective.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the sender's interpretation of a lost response, captured by two parameters: ε (probability the response never reaches the sender) and γ (the sender's interpretation of that missing response, ranging from rejection at −1 to acceptance at +1). Alongside the number of information items m, these parameters enter the update rule x_{i,k}(t+1) = (1−α_i)x_{i,k}(t) + α_i z_{ij}(t), where z_{ij} is either the receiver's actual acceptance/rejection or, with probability ε, the constant γ. This single equation—where silence is treated as a signal with a valence γ—is what drives the model's phase transition between consensus, fragmentation, and anomie.

What would settle it

Re-run the Monte Carlo campaign with a different clustering threshold (e.g., R=0.2 or R=0.5) or with a direct measure of pairwise grounding success (e.g., probability that a randomly chosen sender-receiver pair would accept each other's information). If the one-cluster region no longer converges to ε→0.5, γ→−1, or if the anomie region disappears for large m with γ>0, the central claim would be falsified as a measurement artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a robust mapping from interaction context to emergent macro-level outcome: global communal common ground emerges in environments where it is likely for the sender not to perceive the receiver's response and the lack of response is interpreted as rejection; when the lack of response is instead interpreted as acceptance, combined with a large number of selectable information, common ground collapses into anomie. The authors establish this through Monte Carlo simulations of the Sender–Receiver Grounding (SRG) model, in which each agent updates a certainty vector x_i ∈ [−1,1]^m about which pieces of information belong to the common ground. Agents interact asynchronously on a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that clustering agents' certainty vectors with DBSCAN (using R=0.35 and treating >30% noise as 'anomie') faithfully captures whether agents actually share common ground; if this measurement mapping is wrong, the reported transitions between global consensus, fragmentation, and anomie could be artifacts of the clustering algorithm rather than properties of the grounding dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a global common ground can be achieved without central authority simply by engineering interaction norms or platform designs that make silence read as rejection.
  • Online-style contexts (high loss probability, neutral interpretation of silence) will reliably produce fragmented common ground, with more distinct fragments as the number of available information items grows.
  • When many competing information items are combined with a positive interpretation bias (silence read as acceptance), the model predicts total loss of shared common ground—anomie—rather than mere fragmentation.
  • The framework offers a formal bridge from micro-level grounding dynamics to macro-level cultural outcomes, enabling quantitative analysis of coordination and polarization.
  • The model's predictions about ε and γ could guide empirical studies of real online communities, where reply rates and interpretations of non-replies vary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to fit ε and γ from observed online behavior (e.g., reply rates and survey measures of how users interpret non-replies) and predict whether a given platform fosters one culture or many; the model predicts platform settings that shift γ negative would increase cultural consensus.
  • The anomie result implies a possible mechanism for 'echo chambers' that is not based on homophily or recommendation algorithms but purely on the interpretation of missing feedback—if silence is assumed to be agreement, agents never receive correction and drift apart.
  • Because the model's clusters are based on state-vector similarity rather than network connectivity, the finding that clusters are almost always network-connected suggests that even weak-tie small-world structure transmits the grounding dynamics—an inference the authors leave implicit.
  • The decay term in the receiver's update (Eq. 5) may be the reason fragmentation increases with m: more competing information means each non-transmitted item decays less often, preserving initial diversity; this could be tested by setting σ to different values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an agent-based model of common ground formation (the Sender–Receiver Grounding model). Agents possess m-dimensional state vectors representing certainty that each information item belongs to the common ground and interact as senders and receivers on a Watts–Strogatz network. The model includes receiver acceptance/rejection, signal loss with probability ε, and sender interpretation γ of a missing response. Monte Carlo simulations (100 replicates) for m=2,4,8,16 and a grid of (ε,γ) are analyzed by DBSCAN clustering of the final state vectors. The main claim is that a global common ground emerges when signal loss is likely and missing responses are interpreted as rejection, while fragmented common ground or anomie (defined by >30% DBSCAN noise) arise when missing responses are interpreted as acceptance, especially for large m. The paper maps these regimes to offline versus online interaction contexts.

Significance. If the reported phase diagram is robust, the paper provides a valuable proof-of-concept link between micro-level grounding processes and macro-level cultural outcomes, with concrete implications for the design of online platforms and for understanding fragmentation and anomie. Strengths include a clearly specified model, openly available code, 100 Monte Carlo replicates with confidence intervals for the main time series, and supplementary checks that DBSCAN clusters correspond to network-connected components. The central limitation is that all qualitative outcomes are mediated by DBSCAN parameters and a noise threshold that are not derived from first principles and are not subjected to sensitivity analysis; in addition, one of the supporting validation statistics is misreported. Because the headline conclusion is formulated in terms of the clustering measurement, the contribution's persuasiveness currently hinges on an unvalidated operationalization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B, Appendix V-B, Fig. 5] The grey-out rule defining anomie (over 30% DBSCAN noise) is arbitrary; no derivation, benchmark, or sensitivity analysis is provided. The headline claim about the collapse of common ground for γ>0 and large m is represented precisely by these grey cells, so the result is conditional on an untested measurement threshold. Similarly, the DBSCAN parameters R=0.35 and MinPts=26/22/14/5 are chosen after 'substantial experimentation' without a reproducible criterion. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over R, MinPts, and the noise threshold showing that the qualitative phase boundaries (global/fragmented/anomie) are stable, or replace the dichotomous grey-out with a continuous noise measure.
  2. [Appendix V-B, Section III-B] MinPts decreases as m increases (26→22→14→5 for m=2→4→8→16). Because R is fixed in Euclidean distance while the volume of an R-ball in R^m shrinks rapidly with dimension, the density requirement is relaxed exactly when the dimensionality grows. The reported increase in cluster count with m (Fig. 4, Fig. 5) may therefore reflect the measurement pipeline rather than the grounding dynamics. The authors should demonstrate that the qualitative pattern persists under alternative density calibrations (e.g., MinPts proportional to n, or R scaled with √m), or provide a theoretical justification for the chosen scaling.
  3. [Section IV-B, Tables S1-S2] The text states that 'intra-cluster distance is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the inter-cluster distance,' but Tables S1/S2 give ratios of only about 4 for m=16 (offline: 0.463 vs 1.89; online: 0.559 vs 2.28). The m=8 offline case (0.165 vs 1.83) is about 11, but the general claim is not supported. Since this is one of the validation checks for interpreting DBSCAN clusters as distinct common grounds, the statement should be corrected and the actual ratios reported. If clusters at m=16 are less well separated than claimed, the fragmentation result at large m may be an artifact of overlapping clusters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section V] The abstract and discussion refer to 'total loss of any shared common ground' and 'total collapse,' but the grey-out criterion is only >30% noise, meaning up to 70% of agents can still belong to clusters. Qualify these statements as 'large-scale loss' or 'collapse of a shared common ground for most agents.'
  2. [Appendix A, Appendix B] The in-text references to 'Appendix V-A' and 'Appendix V-B' should be 'Appendix A' and 'Appendix B'; the Roman numeral seems to be a leftover from an earlier organization.
  3. [Section III-C] The phrase 'In the next chapter, we present our main results' should read 'section' rather than 'chapter.'
  4. [Section III-A, Section IV-B] No sensitivity analysis is reported for the fixed agent-level parameters (α=0.2, β=5, σ=0.05, Watts–Strogatz k=6, p=0.2, initial Beta(5,5)). At minimum, the authors should acknowledge that the phase diagram may depend on these choices and give a brief justification for the selected values.
  5. [Fig. 5] Each panel of Fig. 5 uses a different color scale, making cross-panel comparison difficult. Also, the heatmaps show only mean cluster counts without confidence intervals despite 100 replicates; adding variability information (e.g., significance contours) would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the phase diagram is a simulation output, not a fitted or definitional tautology.

full rationale

The paper's central results are simulation outputs of the SRG model (Eqs. 1–5). Parameters γ, ε, and m are independent model inputs that are scanned, not fitted; no quantity is estimated from data and then relabeled as a prediction. The DBSCAN-based cluster counts and noise fractions are post-hoc measurement conventions. Although R, MinPts, and the 30% noise grey-out threshold are hand-tuned, they do not enter the model dynamics, and the qualitative trends (e.g., noise increasing with γ and m, cluster counts higher online than offline) are generated by the equations rather than imposed by the measurement. The cited prior work by the authors is used only for conceptual grounding, not as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the simulation outcomes. Hence no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical or social entities; it relies on established constructs (common ground, grounding) and a set of fitted/assumed parameters. The main assumptions are the functional forms of the dynamics and the operationalization of common ground via DBSCAN clustering. No external data are used to calibrate the model.

free parameters (8)
  • Susceptibility α_i = 0.2
    Set homogeneously for all agents; controls update step size in Eq. (4). No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Selection bias β_i = 5
    Set homogeneously; shapes logit selection (Eq. 1) and acceptance probability (Eq. 2). No sensitivity analysis.
  • Decay factor σ = 0.05
    Used in Eq. (5) for decay of non-selected information; set in exemplar simulations and carried into main simulations.
  • DBSCAN radius R = 0.35
    Selected after 'substantial experimentation'; determines what counts as a shared common ground and directly affects cluster counts.
  • DBSCAN MinPts = 26, 22, 14, 5 for m=2,4,8,16
    Tuned per m to minimize noise and inter-cluster distance; changes the detected number of clusters.
  • Grey-out noise threshold = 30%
    Cells with over 30% noise are greyed out and interpreted as anomie; this threshold is arbitrary and post hoc.
  • Watts-Strogatz k, p = k=6, p=0.2
    Network topology parameters for the backbone graph; no variation performed.
  • Initial distribution Beta(5,5) = a=b=5
    Produces near-neutral initial certainties; no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Common ground can be represented by a vector x_i,k in [-1,1] of certainty that information k is part of common ground.
    Section II-A: this representation is posited as the model's state abstraction.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional forms in Eqs. (1)-(5) (logit selection, logistic acceptance, signal loss, convex-combination updates, decay) are valid descriptions of grounding.
    These equations are set by the modelers, not derived from data or first principles; they directly generate the simulated dynamics.
  • domain assumption Interactions are pairwise, asynchronous, and constrained by a static Watts-Strogatz network.
    Section II-A: a specific interaction mechanism chosen for tractability; real conversations can be multi-party and dynamic.
  • ad hoc to paper Agents with state vectors within Euclidean distance R=0.35 share a common ground; DBSCAN clusters correspond to common-ground communities.
    Section III-B: the operational mapping from geometry to shared common ground is assumed, not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper A noise proportion above 30% in DBSCAN indicates absence of any shared common ground (anomie).
    Supplementary S2-C: the threshold and its interpretation are chosen to define the anomie regime.
  • domain assumption The Watts-Strogatz network with k=6, p=0.2 is representative of real-world social networks.
    Appendix A: only one network family is used; hubs and degree heterogeneity are absent.
  • domain assumption Initial certainties are independently sampled from a rescaled Beta(5,5) distribution.
    Supplementary S1: chosen to represent neutral initial conditions; independence across agents and topics is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An agent-based model of the formation and evolution of common ground." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EK3MNATS

@misc{pith2026260728915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An agent-based model of the formation and evolution of common ground},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EK3MNATS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28915}
}
read the original abstract

The existence of a communal common ground is vital for collective action and coordination in a population, but the micro-level cognitive and social processes that lead to the formation and evolution of common ground at the macro-level are undertheorised and have not been rigorously explored. In this work, we adopt a formal approach and develop an agent-based model that describes repeated grounding attempts between agents interacting on a network, with an explicit distinction between a sender agent and a receiver agent during an interaction involving sharing information. Several key novel features enable us to capture a range of different interaction contexts: we allow for the interaction to result in either acceptance or rejection, the receiver's response may be lost to the sender, and the sender can interpret this lack of response as either acceptance or rejection (or even something in between). A campaign of Monte Carlo simulations reveals how different interaction contexts, as well as the available information for sharing, result in different emergent phenomena, such as a global communal common ground, fragmentation into multiple clusters of differing common ground, and even the total loss of any shared common ground. This work highlights the potential for using mathematical models to study micro-macro links in cultural dynamics, including identifying ways to facilitate interactions to foster the emergence of a global communal common ground.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28915 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic of the model. On the left, a population of agents interacting over a backbone network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time series illustrating example simulations of common ground formation in different information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Network snapshots of example simulations of common ground formation in different information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time series of the number of clusters for offline ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmaps of the number of clusters as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life,

    J. De Freitas, K. Thomas, P. DeScioli, and S. Pinker, “Common knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social life,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 28, pp. 13 751–13 758, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Explaining strategic coordination: Cognitive hierarchy theory, strong stackelberg reasoning, and team reasoning

    A. M. Colman, B. D. Pulford, and C. L. Lawrence, “Explaining strategic coordination: Cognitive hierarchy theory, strong stackelberg reasoning, and team reasoning.”Decision, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 35, 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Sustainability, collective self-regulation, and human–nature interdependence,

    Y . Kashima, D. K. Sewell, and Y . Li, “Sustainability, collective self-regulation, and human–nature interdependence,”Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 388–412, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Stewardship of global collective behavior,

    J. B. Bak-Coleman, M. Alfano, W. Barfuss, C. T. Bergstrom, M. A. Centeno, I. D. Couzin, J. F. Donges, M. Galesic, A. S. Gersick, J. Jacquet, A. B. Kao, R. E. Moran, P. Romanczuk, D. I. Rubenstein, K. J. Tombak, J. J. Van Bavel, and E. U. Weber, “Stewardship of global collective behavior,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 27, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Bargaining, communication, and limited war,

    T. C. Schelling, “Bargaining, communication, and limited war,”Conflict Resolution, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 1957

    1957

  6. [6]

    The psychology of coordination and common knowledge

    K. A. Thomas, P. DeScioli, O. S. Haque, and S. Pinker, “The psychology of coordination and common knowledge.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 107, no. 4, p. 657, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    M. S.-Y . Chwe,Rational ritual: Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton University Press, 2013

    2013

  8. [8]

    The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under “almost common knowledge

    A. Rubinstein, “The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under “almost common knowledge”,”The American Economic Review, pp. 385–391, 1989

    1989

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    H. H. Clark,Using language. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  2. [10]

    Shared worlds and shared minds: A theory of collective learning and a psychology of common knowledge

    G. Shteynberg, J. B. Hirsh, R. A. Bentley, and J. Garthoff, “Shared worlds and shared minds: A theory of collective learning and a psychology of common knowledge.”Psychological Review, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 918–931, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Pinker,When Everyone Knows that Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Science of Harmony, Hypocrisy and Outrage

    S. Pinker,When Everyone Knows that Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Science of Harmony, Hypocrisy and Outrage. Allen Lane, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Lewis,Convention: A philosophical study

    D. Lewis,Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press, 1969

    1969

  5. [13]

    Perceiving political polarization in the united states: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide,

    J. Westfall, L. Van Boven, J. R. Chambers, and C. M. Judd, “Perceiving political polarization in the united states: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 145–158, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Environmental decision-making in times of polarization,

    M. Judge, Y . Kashima, L. Steg, and T. Dietz, “Environmental decision-making in times of polarization,”Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 477–503, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    H. H. Clark and S. E. Brennan,Grounding in communication.American Psychological Association, 1991, pp. 127–149

    1991

  8. [16]

    Common Knowledge,

    P. Vanderschraaf and G. Sillari, “Common Knowledge,” inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2023 ed., E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, Eds. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    A cognitive hierarchy model of games,

    C. F. Camerer, T.-H. Ho, and J.-K. Chong, “A cognitive hierarchy model of games,”The quarterly journal of economics, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 861–898, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    A psychological approach to strategic thinking in games,

    C. F. Camerer, T.-H. Ho, and J. K. Chong, “A psychological approach to strategic thinking in games,”Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 157–162, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Joint commitment,

    M. Gilbert, “Joint commitment,” inThe Routledge handbook of collective intentionality. Routledge, 2017, pp. 130–139

    2017

  12. [20]

    Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation

    S. E. Brennan and H. H. Clark, “Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1482, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Meaning, grounding, and the construction of social reality,

    Y . Kashima, “Meaning, grounding, and the construction of social reality,”Asian Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 81–95, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world,

    G. Echterhoff, E. T. Higgins, and J. M. Levine, “Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 496–521, 2009, pMID: 26162223

    2009

  15. [23]

    Shared reality: From sharing-is-believing to merging minds,

    E. T. Higgins, M. Rossignac-Milon, and G. Echterhoff, “Shared reality: From sharing-is-believing to merging minds,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 103–110, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Social transmission and shared reality in cultural dynamics,

    Y . Kashima, B. Bratanova, and K. Peters, “Social transmission and shared reality in cultural dynamics,”Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 15–19, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size,

    N. Fay, S. Garrod, and J. Carletta, “Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size,”Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 481–486, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Anderson,Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism

    B. Anderson,Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, 1983

    1983

  19. [27]

    Toward a sociological model of consensus,

    T. J. Scheff, “Toward a sociological model of consensus,”American Sociological Review, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 32–46, 1967

    1967

  20. [28]

    Grounding: Sharing Information in Social Interaction,

    Y . Kashima, O. Klein, and A. E. Clark, “Grounding: Sharing Information in Social Interaction,” inSocial Communication, K. Fiedler, Ed. Psychology Press, 2007, pp. 27–77. 22

    2007

  21. [29]

    Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my values reflect my culture’s values?

    R. Fischer, “Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my values reflect my culture’s values?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1419–1431, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Perceived cultural importance and actual self- importance of values in cultural identification

    C. Wan, C.-y. Chiu, K.-p. Tam, S.-l. Lee, I. Y .-m. Lau, and S. Peng, “Perceived cultural importance and actual self- importance of values in cultural identification.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 92, no. 2, p. 337, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Culture as common sense: perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence

    X. Zou, K.-P. Tam, M. W. Morris, S.-l. Lee, I. Y .-M. Lau, and C.-y. Chiu, “Culture as common sense: perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 97, no. 4, p. 579, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research,

    C.-Y . Chiu, M. J. Gelfand, T. Yamagishi, G. Shteynberg, and C. Wan, “Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 482–493, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Culture, groups, and coordination problems,

    Y . Kashima, “Culture, groups, and coordination problems,”Psychologische Beitr ¨age, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 237–251, 1999

    1999

  26. [34]

    Modeling Cultural Dynamics,

    Y . Kashima, M. Kirley, A. Stivala, and G. Robins, “Modeling Cultural Dynamics,” inComputational Social Psychology, S. J. R. Robin R Vallacher and A. Nowak, Eds. Routledge, 2017, pp. 281–307

    2017

  27. [35]

    The Dissemination of Culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization,

    R. Axelrod, “The Dissemination of Culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization,”Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203–226, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication,

    B. Latan ´e, “Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication,”Journal of Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 13–25, 1996

    1996

  29. [37]

    Pragmatic aspects of temporal accommodation in turn-taking,

    ˇS. Be ˇnuˇs, A. Gravano, and J. Hirschberg, “Pragmatic aspects of temporal accommodation in turn-taking,”Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 3001–3027, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers,

    S. E. Brennan and M. Williams, “The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers,”Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 383–398, 1995

    1995

  31. [39]

    The subtle spreading of sexist norms,

    N. Koudenburg, A. Kannegieter, T. Postmes, and Y . Kashima, “The subtle spreading of sexist norms,”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1467–1485, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    How social media shapes polarization,

    J. J. Van Bavel, S. Rathje, E. Harris, C. Robertson, and A. Sternisko, “How social media shapes polarization,”Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 913–916, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role of shared reality

    G. Echterhoff, E. T. Higgins, and S. Groll, “Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role of shared reality.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 257–276, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Lewandowsky and S

    S. Lewandowsky and S. Farrell,Computational Modeling in Cognition: Principles and Practice. Sage, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    The Statistical Mechanics of Best-Response Strategy Revision,

    L. Blume, “The Statistical Mechanics of Best-Response Strategy Revision,”Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 111–145, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I,

    A. V . Proskurnikov and R. Tempo, “A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 43, pp. 65–79, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Social Influence and Opinions,

    N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen, “Social Influence and Opinions,”Journal of Mathematical Sociology, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. 193–206, 1990

    1990

  38. [46]

    Networks of conforming or nonconforming individuals tend to reach satisfactory decisions,

    P. Ramazi, J. Riehl, and M. Cao, “Networks of conforming or nonconforming individuals tend to reach satisfactory decisions,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 46, pp. 12 985–12 990, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Synchronization in complex networks,

    A. Arenas, A. D ´ıaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y . Moreno, and C. Zhou, “Synchronization in complex networks,”Physics Reports, vol. 469, no. 3, pp. 93–153, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization,

    R. Axelrod, “The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization,”Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203–226, 1997

    1997

  41. [49]

    In-depth analysis of the naming game dynamics: the homogeneous mixing case,

    A. Baronchelli, V . Loreto, and L. Steels, “In-depth analysis of the naming game dynamics: the homogeneous mixing case,” International Journal of Modern Physics C, vol. 19, no. 05, pp. 785–812, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Newman,Networks: An Introduction

    M. Newman,Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu, “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” inProceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD’96. AAAI Press, 1996, p. 226–231

    1996

  44. [52]

    The Evolution of Social Norms,

    H. Peyton Young, “The Evolution of Social Norms,”Annual Review of Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 359–387, 2015

    2015

  45. [53]

    Collective patterns of social diffusion are shaped by individual inertia and trend-seeking,

    M. Ye, L. Zino, ˇZ. Mlakar, J. W. Bolderdijk, H. Risselada, B. M. Fennis, and M. Cao, “Collective patterns of social diffusion are shaped by individual inertia and trend-seeking,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5698, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention,

    D. Centola, J. Becker, D. Brackbill, and A. Baronchelli, “Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention,” Science, vol. 360, no. 6393, pp. 1116–1119, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    Facilitating innovation diffusion in social networks using dynamic norms,

    L. Zino, M. Ye, and M. Cao, “Facilitating innovation diffusion in social networks using dynamic norms,”PNAS Nexus, vol. 1, no. 5, p. pgac229, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    The online information environment: Understanding how the internet shapes people’s engagement with scientific information,

    “The online information environment: Understanding how the internet shapes people’s engagement with scientific information,” The Royal Society, Tech. Rep., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/ online-information-environment/

    2022

  49. [57]

    The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood

    C. Paul and M. Matthews, “The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model,”Rand Corporation, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 1–10, 2016. 23 SUPPLEMENTARYMATERIAL: An agent-based model of the formation and evolution of common ground S1. INITIAL CONDITION DISTRIBUTION For eachk= 1, . . ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.